Harrison v. Kernan et al

Filing 30

Order by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas denying 19 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

EUREKA DIVISION

7
8

DAVID SCOTT HARRISON,

Case No. 16-cv-07103-NJV

Plaintiff,
9

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL

v.
10
11

S. KERNAN, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 19

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13
14

Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel to represent him in this action.

15

(Doc. 19.) There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may

16

lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18,

17

25 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to

18

counsel in § 1983 action), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh'g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th

19

Cir. 1998) (en banc). That is not an issue in the present case. The court may ask counsel to

20

represent an indigent litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 only in "exceptional circumstances," the

21

determination of which requires an evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits,

22

and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the

23

legal issues involved. See id. at 1525;, Terrell v. Brewer 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);

24

Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Both of these factors must be

25

viewed together before reaching a decision on a request for counsel under § 1915. See id.

26

In this case, the likelihood of success on the merits is moderate, and will be determined

27

after the resolution of the parties' pending motions for summary judgment. However, Plaintiff has

28

amply demonstrated his ability to effectively articulate his claims in the well-written papers he has

1

filed, including his currently pending motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the court finds

2

no basis for the appointment of counsel at this time. Plaintiff's motion is therefore DENIED.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 20, 2017
______________________________________
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2